SEC recruiting so far (is it time for change)?

[shotgunDawg]

The dumbest argument of all. It's about the students, opportunities, innovation, economic promise. Not the fans. Fans need to get on board and support the university thus the students.

If you think this is 100% about your entertainment, go watch the NFL and leave college behind. Entertainment is part of it, but it pales in comparison to the real mission of college athletics.

It should be about fans because without fans, where does the money come from that pays for these scholarships?

 

[PhredPhantom]

Just spitballing here:

Leave scholarships at 85. Each school has 10 “at large” scholarships that would be recruited and signed first and then after that the other 75 would be done through a draft system.

This would mean that the very best players would be recruited “at large” and thus would still have some say about where they want to go to school and the drafted players would still get scholarships; just maybe not to their first choice of schools.

There should be no trading of draft positions/slots; otherwise the rich schools would just buy what they wanted.

It’s so crazy it just might work! Or not.

 

[mstateglfr]

Just spitballing here:

Leave scholarships at 85. Each school has 10 “at large” scholarships that would be recruited and signed first and then after that the other 75 would be done through a draft system.

This would mean that the very best players would be recruited “at large” and thus would still have some say about where they want to go to school and the drafted players would still get scholarships; just maybe not to their first choice of schools.

There should be no trading of draft positions/slots; otherwise the rich schools would just buy what they wanted.

It’s so crazy it just might work! Or not.

View attachment 18865

 

[shotgunDawg]

Just spitballing here:

Leave scholarships at 85. Each school has 10 “at large” scholarships that would be recruited and signed first and then after that the other 75 would be done through a draft system.

This would mean that the very best players would be recruited “at large” and thus would still have some say about where they want to go to school and the drafted players would still get scholarships; just maybe not to their first choice of schools.

There should be no trading of draft positions/slots; otherwise the rich schools would just buy what they wanted.

It’s so crazy it just might work! Or not.

A draft won't work unless we're paying players or there is some sort of path to getting paid by opting in to a draft.

 

[o_HuntDawg]

Just spitballing here:

Leave scholarships at 85. Each school has 10 “at large” scholarships that would be recruited and signed first and then after that the other 75 would be done through a draft system.

This would mean that the very best players would be recruited “at large” and thus would still have some say about where they want to go to school and the drafted players would still get scholarships; just maybe not to their first choice of schools.

There should be no trading of draft positions/slots; otherwise the rich schools would just buy what they wanted.

It’s so crazy it just might work! Or not.

Quiet possibly the dumbest idea ever.

Lets imagine you're small town Mississippi athlete at Eupora MS turns into a D1 prospect. Doesn't get the 10 at large picks. Has to enter the draft to play college football.. and is drafted by Oregon State. He has no options or choices... he just has to go because thats the only way to make CFB fair?

One heckuva idea

 

[o_HuntDawg]

Ive read the majority of this thread and I'll say this:

The blue-bloods are always going to be the blue-bloods. If you take the scholarship number down the cream will always rise to the top. Sure it may take the middle of the road team a LITTLE closer to the top, but its still not going to turn them into a blue blood.

95% of the P5 programs right now COULD take a huge step on their own to being more competitive IF they are willing to make a major step up in commitment to their programs, facilities, etc. This includes MSU and Ole Miss

Just look at Dabo at Clemson. Did Clemson care about football and have all those amenities prior? And Alabama had gone thru a what 10-15 year stretch of being average to below average before Saban showed up. Both programs made commitments to be better , improved facilities and are STILL working to improve them because they are committed to be the best.

I disagree with robbing the rich to pay the poor and this is all this does. Universities and Programs need to make commitments to be better before any complaining needs to be done.

Do we think MSU baseball would remain where they are at in the College Baseball landscape or start the slippery slope downhill if the powers that be didn't commit to keep the DUDE and the areas around in at the TOP of college baseball? I don't hear people on this board complaining that our baseball program facilities are better than most everyone colleges in the country, or that we are paying coaches more, or that we can afford to keep a 4th volunteer coach around because we do enough in camps and such to pay him a salary thats likely higher than a 2nd or 3rd coach at a non power 5?

MSU made a commitment to make their baseball stadium the best in the country. They pay their coaches both head and assistants at the TOP of the college baseball pay scale. Their scoreboard was improved to be the biggest in college baseball. The LOFTS behind the stadium. All the while the baseball program LOSES money it does not make money.

Lets see MSU make the same commitment to making the football facilities in the upper tier. Pay their coaches in the upper tier. Have all the amenities other programs have... and see what levels that takes the football program to. MSU doesn't want to make that commitment or doesn't feel like it can or is happy with where they are at. Im not for making other programs take it down a notch because universities that can do more, aren't

 

[PirateDawg]

This is how you do it!

https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-1989-11-17-sp-1667-story.html

 

[Russ Wheeler]

Ive read the majority of this thread and I'll say this:

The blue-bloods are always going to be the blue-bloods. If you take the scholarship number down the cream will always rise to the top. Sure it may take the middle of the road team a LITTLE closer to the top, but its still not going to turn them into a blue blood.

95% of the P5 programs right now COULD take a huge step on their own to being more competitive IF they are willing to make a major step up in commitment to their programs, facilities, etc. This includes MSU and Ole Miss

Just look at Dabo at Clemson. Did Clemson care about football and have all those amenities prior? And Alabama had gone thru a what 10-15 year stretch of being average to below average before Saban showed up. Both programs made commitments to be better , improved facilities and are STILL working to improve them because they are committed to be the best.

I disagree with robbing the rich to pay the poor and this is all this does. Universities and Programs need to make commitments to be better before any complaining needs to be done.

Do we think MSU baseball would remain where they are at in the College Baseball landscape or start the slippery slope downhill if the powers that be didn't commit to keep the DUDE and the areas around in at the TOP of college baseball? I don't hear people on this board complaining that our baseball program facilities are better than most everyone colleges in the country, or that we are paying coaches more, or that we can afford to keep a 4th volunteer coach around because we do enough in camps and such to pay him a salary thats likely higher than a 2nd or 3rd coach at a non power 5?

MSU made a commitment to make their baseball stadium the best in the country. They pay their coaches both head and assistants at the TOP of the college baseball pay scale. Their scoreboard was improved to be the biggest in college baseball. The LOFTS behind the stadium. All the while the baseball program LOSES money it does not make money.

Lets see MSU make the same commitment to making the football facilities in the upper tier. Pay their coaches in the upper tier. Have all the amenities other programs have... and see what levels that takes the football program to. MSU doesn't want to make that commitment or doesn't feel like it can or is happy with where they are at. Im not for making other programs take it down a notch because universities that can do more, aren't

This post is 90% accurate, I would only correct one thing. You simplify it too much in that last paragraph by making it only about money. Unless you're Oregon or Maryland or Oklahoma State, with a single HUGE donor, it's about more than that. It's about building the fanbase - sheer numbers. It's about buy-in from everyone. And honestly, MSU probably punches well above its weight here. This is why we need more population in Mississippi. This is what Alabama, Clemson and Auburn have done. They've created football cultures. We need to do that same. Sure we can have our own identity and the way we do things, but by and large that's the blueprint. The thing, you usually need some type of success to pop that off, so you kind of have to get lucky somewhere along the way. The times we've had a chance to make that luck, we get punched in the mouth (Cam Newton).

I'm almost to the point of thinking that our success is just tied to Ole Miss in some way, and we need to play off that rivalry. Take 2014 for instance, the 'story' was the State of Mississippi, not necessarily us or them or Dak or anything. Now we're sort of back in the spotlight with Leach/Kiffin. May as well embrace it, I say.

 

[shotgunDawg]

Ive read the majority of this thread and I'll say this:

The blue-bloods are always going to be the blue-bloods. If you take the scholarship number down the cream will always rise to the top. Sure it may take the middle of the road team a LITTLE closer to the top, but its still not going to turn them into a blue blood.

95% of the P5 programs right now COULD take a huge step on their own to being more competitive IF they are willing to make a major step up in commitment to their programs, facilities, etc. This includes MSU and Ole Miss

Just look at Dabo at Clemson. Did Clemson care about football and have all those amenities prior? And Alabama had gone thru a what 10-15 year stretch of being average to below average before Saban showed up. Both programs made commitments to be better , improved facilities and are STILL working to improve them because they are committed to be the best.

I disagree with robbing the rich to pay the poor and this is all this does. Universities and Programs need to make commitments to be better before any complaining needs to be done.

Do we think MSU baseball would remain where they are at in the College Baseball landscape or start the slippery slope downhill if the powers that be didn't commit to keep the DUDE and the areas around in at the TOP of college baseball? I don't hear people on this board complaining that our baseball program facilities are better than most everyone colleges in the country, or that we are paying coaches more, or that we can afford to keep a 4th volunteer coach around because we do enough in camps and such to pay him a salary thats likely higher than a 2nd or 3rd coach at a non power 5?

MSU made a commitment to make their baseball stadium the best in the country. They pay their coaches both head and assistants at the TOP of the college baseball pay scale. Their scoreboard was improved to be the biggest in college baseball. The LOFTS behind the stadium. All the while the baseball program LOSES money it does not make money.

Lets see MSU make the same commitment to making the football facilities in the upper tier. Pay their coaches in the upper tier. Have all the amenities other programs have... and see what levels that takes the football program to. MSU doesn't want to make that commitment or doesn't feel like it can or is happy with where they are at. Im not for making other programs take it down a notch because universities that can do more, aren't

I disagree with a good bit of this.

Agree that the blue bloods will still be the blue bloods, but, due to the narrowing of the gap, the 2nd tier teams will be able to hold onto coaches & actually build their program. In the 1st 5-10 years of lowered scholarships, you may not see a ton of difference except closer games, but over the course of years 10-20, you're going to see some 2nd tier programs that are able to keep assistants & HCs easier, rise & begin competing.

Other than Clemson, college football has been stuck in a rut with the same power houses for 40 years. Yes, Tennessee & Nebraska have fallen, but no one has really risen except for Clemson & why is that? Mostly because they've had coaching continuity for 10 plus years & have been able to build. As you saw with MSU & Mullen, Ole Miss & Tuberville, Vandy & James Franklin, etc, etc, etc, there is currently no path for a 2nd tier team to rise, but by lowering scholarships, you create a more navigable path along with closer games.

There is absolutely nothing bad about lowering scholarships in college football. It'll only help the game. There is no downside.

 

[thatsbaseball]

There would be a "downside" if the blue bloods decided to take their toys and go start another division.

 

[o_HuntDawg]

I disagree with a good bit of this.

Agree that the blue bloods will still be the blue bloods, but, due to the narrowing of the gap, the 2nd tier teams will be able to hold onto coaches & actually build their program. In the 1st 5-10 years of lowered scholarships, you may not see a ton of difference except closer games, but over the course of years 10-20, you're going to see some 2nd tier programs that are able to keep assistants & HCs easier, rise & begin competing.

Other than Clemson, college football has been stuck in a rut with the same power houses for 40 years. Yes, Tennessee & Nebraska have fallen, but no one has really risen except for Clemson & why is that? Mostly because they've had coaching continuity for 10 plus years & have been able to build. As you saw with MSU & Mullen, Ole Miss & Tuberville, Vandy & James Franklin, etc, etc, etc, there is currently no path for a 2nd tier team to rise, but by lowering scholarships, you create a more navigable path along with closer games.

There is absolutely nothing bad about lowering scholarships in college football. It'll only help the game. There is no downside.

So Georgia and auburn aren’t second tier teams that made a commitment and rose?

Wisconsin, Oregon, Washington arent second year teams that have had runs at the top tier?

There are pathways. It’s just a tougher path. And a path you have to be committed to as a whole for more than a year or two.

If taking scholarships work why are the same blue bloods still the blue bloods? They were already reduced once.

Again my opinion is you don’t like how things are, don’t change the rules or want them changed to help you win. Find a way to get better and compete with those blue bloods, too many universities and programs aren’t willing to do that.

College football is a cash cow and minus nfl football the most popular sport in the us today. I wouldn’t change a thing about it, and would encourage these schools that are profiting money hand over fist to reinvest in their programs

 

[johnson86-1]

So Georgia and auburn aren’t second tier teams that made a commitment and rose?

Wisconsin, Oregon, Washington arent second year teams that have had runs at the top tier?

There are pathways. It’s just a tougher path. And a path you have to be committed to as a whole for more than a year or two.

If taking scholarships work why are the same blue bloods still the blue bloods? They were already reduced once.

Again my opinion is you don’t like how things are, don’t change the rules or want them changed to help you win. Find a way to get better and compete with those blue bloods, too many universities and programs aren’t willing to do that.

College football is a cash cow and minus nfl football the most popular sport in the us today. I wouldn’t change a thing about it, and would encourage these schools that are profiting money hand over fist to reinvest in their programs

This is idiotic. Ignoring how much luck is involved and about it being about more than making a commitment (OSU is committed, they still aren't winning a national championship; Oregon is committed, they have at least gotten close) you still have the issue about playing by different rules. Ole Miss made a hell of a commitment, and it moved them up in the football world a lot, but it also brought them right back down because they tried to play by the same rules as the blue bloods. Blue bloods can come into Mississippi and outbid Ole Miss for a player. Ole Miss cannot go into Georgia and outbid them for a player without having heat brought down on them.

 

[campshelbydog842003]

I never said it was. Read all the posts in the thread.

I did read the entire thread. The same amount of people will be getting scholarships they will just be getting them in different sports. The idea that we need to “think about how this affects real people” does not make sense. We need to think about the people that have not been getting the scholarships they deserve in other sports so Alabama can sit 3 5 stars on the bench in case one gets hurt.

 

[Russ Wheeler]

This is idiotic. Ignoring how much luck is involved and about it being about more than making a commitment (OSU is committed, they still aren't winning a national championship; Oregon is committed, they have at least gotten close) you still have the issue about playing by different rules. Ole Miss made a hell of a commitment, and it moved them up in the football world a lot, but it also brought them right back down because they tried to play by the same rules as the blue bloods. Blue bloods can come into Mississippi and outbid Ole Miss for a player. Ole Miss cannot go into Georgia and outbid them for a player without having heat brought down on them.

That's not the commitment we're talking about. Don't be intentionally ignorant. Obviously we are assuming that the level of player pay is on par with the norm, not Ole Miss or SMU level stuff, which is so far outside the norm.

What OSU are you talking about, because the Ohio was has won plenty of titles. If it's Oklahoma, they've been pretty close and I detailed what's going on with them in my previous post.

Huntdawg's post is NOT idiotic. Not sure how you garnered that.

 

[shotgunDawg]

There would be a "downside" if the blue bloods decided to take their toys and go start another division.

Nah. That's an unfounded fear. They have other sports to play in which they need everyone else. Starting their own division wouldn't be in the best interest of their athletic departments & likely lead to some Title 9 issues.

 

[shotgunDawg]

So Georgia and auburn aren’t second tier teams that made a commitment and rose?

Wisconsin, Oregon, Washington arent second year teams that have had runs at the top tier?

There are pathways. It’s just a tougher path. And a path you have to be committed to as a whole for more than a year or two.

If taking scholarships work why are the same blue bloods still the blue bloods? They were already reduced once.

Again my opinion is you don’t like how things are, don’t change the rules or want them changed to help you win. Find a way to get better and compete with those blue bloods, too many universities and programs aren’t willing to do that.

College football is a cash cow and minus nfl football the most popular sport in the us today. I wouldn’t change a thing about it, and would encourage these schools that are profiting money hand over fist to reinvest in their programs

Auburn & UGA are blue bloods.

Washington, Oregon, & Wisky don't have a chance in hell of winning a natty. They can get to the playoff as a 4 seed, but that's it. Oklahoma can't even win one right now. The gap to large.

College football makes money, but it also leaves a ton of money on the table. The sport is nowhere near maximizing profits.

Reducing scholarships helped but it didn't go far enough & that has only been more of an issue as recruiting sites provide infinitely more information on players across the country, thus allowing the blue bloods to use their 85 scholarships in a more optimal fashion.

The sport clearly needs change & when there is a will there's a way.